I find these events concerning, especially for one person, but let's look at a few facts.
The "MILITARY" (as in the Federal US armed forces) as far as I know, are not in charge. Ergo, no martial law in the strictest sense. Now, it may seem
like it, sense the local, state, county, and city police have been "militarized" and they all look like some sort of soldier.
The Governor of the state cam call out the national guard to quell civil disturbance and to assist law enforcement.
That's perfectly legal...I am assuming that has been done. This too would look like martial law.
So, so far, this is not technically martial law.
HOWEVER; three things I have heard do concern me.
1) closing all subways, airspace, etc....unless their is the threat of other suspects/multiple attackers that seems a bit excessive. If you know he is
in a certain area corden it off. Apparently they were wrong, or he is one elusive dude.
2) Going door to door is iffy....I suppose you could call it "probable cause" or for "public safety", but what happens if you don't let the cops
in...maybe wife is in the shower, you know everything is ok, well you need a warrent to come in, so what happens to 4th amendment in this situation if
its refused. I mean if it was a foreign group or army , and it was a "war" you might be able to justify it. But again, as far as we know only one guy
is being pursued. If this guy stabbed a couple people in the mall do you think they would go to this extreme. Granted a bomber is technically more
dangerous, but still seems a bit like overkill.
3) I heard we were randomely detaiing people on the streets. That's iffy as well.
4) I do kind of feel that the large reaction is a combination of "knee jerk" along with "let's test some of our larger scale contingency planning and
see how it works"....less likely, but still possible that someone is wondering, "how far can we push this" before regular folks start getting
edit on 19-4-2013 by SrWingCommander because: spelling